Tactician
Bonuses:
-100% Land Losses on Ambush Attacks
-15% Attack Travel Time
Accurate Espionage (in war)
So can still be ambushed to kill elites but no land gains?
Printable View
Tactician
Bonuses:
-100% Land Losses on Ambush Attacks
-15% Attack Travel Time
Accurate Espionage (in war)
So can still be ambushed to kill elites but no land gains?
good catch.
hidden nerf to make the personality useless!
where you got taht from? final changes says "immune to ambush"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellstar
http://utopia-game.com/wol/chooser/age_details/Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceLee
Very very sneaky
Doubt this will get attention in the Strategy thread, I posted the same question in the Questions thread.
The link that says that is the one directly related to the code so I'm guessing its actually that. Poor tacts.
Well that killed the goat.
beeheheh
Yea would like an answer to this one, Before the age starts.
Its ambush immunity, the bonus hasn't changed.
During war, ambush is often used to help a chain victim get back some land with easy hits or to deny a chain victim incoming land. Even if you can still hit them for 0 acres, there's not much point in doing an ambush during war unless you get acres.
I think what people are questioning is that, are players immune to the entire Ambush attack, meaning it can't be made on them, or are they immune to only the land loss portion of the Ambush attack?
Come on Bishop, stop being coy, you know exactly why people are inquiring this.
No coyness involved. I'm not repeating myself.
Totally not true. Ambushing an Orc takes minimal resources, so even without getting some land back, killing offensive elites is a big part of Ambush usage and strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
This is just another example of poor explanation of in-game features, something that those in charge of wording and communicating these features have somehow failed to improve upon age after age. There's no need to be vague with these things, yet we keep seeing it and players keep having to ask for clarification of a couple features every age. In this case, there are two directly different wordings of the feature in question, but somehow we can't even get an explicit answer as to which definition is the actual function without asking more than once.
It's like talking to a child who constantly dodges the question because they know they're in trouble if they answer directly. ;)
This is an impressive attempt to ignore a clear answer, well done to you.
I'm not trying to fight here, it's just frustrating when there are two different wordings that define two different versions of the same feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Land loss is a direct result of the Ambush attack, but military losses are also a direct result of the Ambush attack. To be immune to the Ambush attack, you need to be immune to both land loss and military loss. The game explanation only shows 100% reduction in land loss, but the game changes posted shows immunity to Ambush as a whole, which should include the military loss portion of the attack.
Based on the game explanation in the Details page, the Tactician is not immune to the entire Ambush attack, just the land loss portion. People are asking if this is an oversight or as intended, and we're being made to "figure out" what you mean with your answer. I don't even know what "the bonus has not changed" means, what bonus is involved in the Ambush attack? It's a function that returns land lost in an attack, it doesn't give a bonus to anything?
If you're done answering this, we will just have to choose the Details page explanation and ignore the posted game change wording, which is unfortunate because a whole lot of players made plans based on the game change wording, which has turned out to be misleading.
Its immunity, the bonus is unchanged. You made me repeat myself.
(╯?□?）╯︵ ┻━┻
well at least you ended the topic on an amusing note. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Would've been easy if they just made it "Ambush Immunity" like WH's "Plague Immunity" and "Dragon Immunity".
Can i point something out... Plague immune provinces can still get and pass on the plague, they just dont feel its effects, so it is to be expected that you can still ambush a tactician but it will result in kills alone, but it isnt clear and clarification on the exact meaning of immunity would help.
If I play Orc and hit you, you can be sure it's part of a chain and you won't want to waste a general ambushing hits that don't result in incoming landQuote:
Originally Posted by Verminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
Can you assure me that you wont be in a war longer than 3 days this entire age? If you're not going to be in a war over 3 days then you dont want to pick anything other than warrior anyway -.-
Its fiddly to change the bonuses messaging as it comes from the db, but we will try to make this more obvious.
did you just run me over the coals when I asked for this, only to graciously consent to the next guy that asked? I might take it personally now :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
No, i answered teh question someone asked by stating it was ambush immunity and that the bonus was the same as the old one. Then you asked me the same question about 3 posts later and then gave out because i wouldn't repeat myself, which you eventually made me do.
Next thing you'll tell me that these are not the droids I'm looking for. ;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Landro
Mind control attempts aside, that's only one of several circumstances you can run into during a war. Another is having a recently chained enemy Orc who maintains their huge offense and makes 4 max gain hits on different provinces to help recover from the chain. Those random provinces in your kingdom probably aren't chain targets, so killing some of that huge offense with minimal effort can't possibly be a bad idea.
but I gave out, you repeated yourself by your own choice ;) Or are my mind tricks that sneaky...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
either way, we're scrapping our Tacticians for next age, it's not worth having to use credits if we find out our elites are still vulnerable to ambush deaths even though we lose no land. Frankly, losing no land but losing elites is like a double whammy, that's a net return of less offense on more land, yucko ducko.
i was wrong, we fell for bishops trolling...
They are immune but were lazy to change the ingame guide as it would mean having to code something far longer than just changing ambush land-loss from 50% to 0%
Tacts ARE immune to bush. It was just more difficult to code immunity to ambush into changes as it would require adding more code, the way it is printed is just easier to display, changing -50% land losses to -100%. You can't ambush to kill leets.
thats only if your stupid enough to order 4 max gain hits on 4 different targets...a well organized kd shouldn't simply have a chained person max gaining unless they have already effectively won the war. In that case who cares if u lose a few leets u won the war ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Verminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
I agree. That would be stupid and if they're that stupid, you should be winning anyway
The flaw in your argument is that you believe all kingdoms must be well-organized kingdoms and all players should know exactly what to do at all times. Let's be a little more new-player-friendly, you don't improve a game if you base all features around experienced players. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
You shouldn't put in a feature to encourage bad tactics to counter bad play. Plus even if the goal of ambush is solely to kill leets all you do by including that feature is give an edge to good players who understand when killing leets is more important than land compared to new players who thought ambush protection was a good thing because of no land lost. Good players dont need that extra edgeQuote:
Originally Posted by Verminator
To be done with it, they ARE immune to ambush in all ways shapes and forms. THE END.